The Knicks would have prime Jason Kidd (19/7/11 in his prime), both Tyson Chandler and Marcus Camby who won Defensive Player of the Year, Amar'e who averaged 26 in his prime, 'Melo, and then the rest of the pieces fill in. Also prime Kurt Thomas (14/9) and Rasheed Wallace (19/8).

The Clippers would be good too, with prime Lamar Odom, Chauncey Billups, Grant Hill, Jamal Crawford, and Caron Butler.

Yes, and he has become severely overrated around these parts. The best perimeter defender in the league somehow never made a single all-defensive team in his career? C'mon man, you know he's not better than LeBron

That's the terrifying part - all their superstars are in their early 20s and only getting better. If we take the future-prime approach, assuming they all continue to develop as their current trends have gone... shitballs will be set loose.

It's tough. The best defense probably goes to the Knicks, while the best offense probably goes to the Heat. Some people in this thread think the Lakers would run away with it, but I think the Heat and Lakers would be neck-to-neck. However, the other teams I listed would still give them a run for their money.

Great breakdown. I think the Heat with prime Ray Allen/Rashard Lewis and Miller and Battier as bench players are probably the best. The Heat would have an unstoppable 3 pointer barrage from Allen, Lewis and Miller, who probably shoot 50% from behind the arc with all the open looks they get from Lebron, Wade and Bosh. Also, since basketball is such an individual game, it's hard to vote against the team with the best player (Lebron).

To me, the Knicks come in a very close second, since they are stacked from 1-12 with offense and defense.

I don't want to sound like a complete Heat fan, but I mean come on, prime LeBron who is the best player of his generation, prime Wade who's probably best the SG of his generation and in the top 5 of SG of all time, Ray Allen is the best 3 point shooter of all time, Rashard who was damn deadly, same with Mike. And let us not forget Bosh who is one of the best PF in the game today and will hold his place in history, even if he isn't one of the best, no one can argue that he is seriously damn good. Not many people are giving the Heat enough of a chance.

Edit: And on top of James and Wade as two incredible defensive players you have Battier who was the best defender in his prime in the league, who was still to be taken seriously on offense. And not to circlejerk more on LeBron, but he might be very well be the most well-rounded/complete defender ever or at least the league has seen in a while.

The Heat would be right there with the Lakers. But you are forgetting that as recently as 2009-2010 years, Pau Gasol was mentioned as either the best or the second best PF next to Dirk for his dominating performance against both the Magic and the Celtics in the finals.

Artest in his prime is a better defender than Battier. Remember Artest is one of the few DPOY wing defenders right up there with Payton and Jordan.

The Lakers have the names, but the Spurs were on a dominating streak and made it to the Western Conference Finals as recently as last year. And they basically did it a bunch of random dudes, old Duncan, old Ginobili, and Tony Parker.

If Ginobili and Duncan were in their prime- especially Duncan- I don't think the Spurs could be stopped. I mean, prime Duncan immediately becomes the best big man and post player in the league. That'd be giving Pop way too many weapons.

I know, but I think everything else about that team- their coaching, teamwork, and discipline- is so good that giving them prime Duncan and Ginobili would put them over the top. All of a sudden they'd have a top 5 shooting guard and, basically, the best center.

The bench is totally irrelevant, tbh. I'm confused by the people (not you) saying it'd be an issue. Jamison-MWP-Pau-Dwight can all play 36~ minutes and occupy every minute of the front court, Kobe played 41 mpg in 3 straight seasons, so he's good for that much, and Nash' prime saw him playing 35 minutes per game. So, for 7 minutes a night Steve Blake spots up and is a liability on defense(albeit with 2 DPOYs ready to help) and 13 minutes a night the offense runs more through Kobe and Gasol while Blake spots up. How big of a negative is that, really? What team has less than 20 minutes a night contributed from a player that's not an all-star? Because, that's what we're talking about. This team would be made up of only all-stars, except for 20 minutes where you get average or mediocre guard play. Depth doesn't matter in this hypothetical.

I don't think the bench is an issue, if that wasn't clear. It is shallower than some, but when you're starting this much talent it doesn't matter. This team is obscenely stacked and is easily the best in the league in this scenario.

Okay, but I would argue the majority of analysts would not agree with that assessment. 2x all defensive team with a defensive POY is impressive for Artest, especially given the way the game was called in the mid-00s, but he is still not close to the level of multiple other wing defenders.

jamison was 20/10 on 43% shooting. ronron shot 40%. (their TS%s were mediocre as well). Odom on the other hand was 15/10 with good percentages. i'd rather have Odom. plus artest was getting thrown out every other game :)

nash is obviously great, but paul is still better, even when compared to nash's prime.

Kobe was better than Grant Hill, but on a team filled with superstars fully capable of scoring efficiently (italicized for emphasis), i'd rather have Hill in his prime because he was still an amazing player. better passer, better defender, better rebounder, and still a great scorer in his own right...he could contribute effectively in more ways.

i'm sure blake could hold his own, but i dont know about Deandre Jordan. to me thats the kicker. he looks like he's going to be really good this year, but i just dont know yet. at least he's really good on D.

also, the lakers suck after the top 5. the clippers are a really versatile, deep team. i think youre overrating the lakers, and underrating the clippers. really it neither of these teams.

i'm starting to lean towards the knicks as the best team. best unit of big men in the league. dont forget about prime amare. maybe the heat.

sleeper pick: Minnesota. healthy Brandon Roy and Rubio, young AK47, Love, and Pek could do a lot of damage

/r/nba, you need to stop doing this. Chris Paul is not better than Nash in his prime. Nor will he ever be better than Nash in his prime.

-Steve Nash's 16 year career averages in 3 point %, True Shooting % eFG%, and FT% are all significantly higher than Chris Paul has posted in any of those categories in any year. That's not really to knock Paul's numbers, it's more to establish that Nash is quite probably the most efficient shooter in NBA history.
-They have comparable assist ratios and expected assists adjusted for pace of game, but Nash scores substantially more with a lower usage rate.
-While Paul is a better defender and creates many more steals, he also fouls more, and per possession, Paul is not the caliber of defender that Rajon Rondo is or Jason Kidd was in his prime. Statistically, he's on par with Derrick Rose, which while that's nothing to scoff at, it's not as though Paul's defense alone changes games.

And while Nash is indisputably a hall of fame player, I think he's going to pad that resume further and have the best season of his career since Amar'e left Phoenix.

but chris paul is a great shooter too, 2nd only to nash at the position (assuming step curry, who looks better than both, is off the court with an injury). i cut paul a little slack here though, because he's always had to be the primary scorer on his teams. nash got to play with amare and dirk, which i imagine would open the floor up for him. their usg% are nearly the same. i think the difference between their scoring abilities is negligible because of their wildly different situations.

i forget who said it, but some prominent statistician summed up basketball as "the efficient use of possessions." in this regard i think youre undervaluing steals and turnovers. paul led the league in steals, and helped the clippers to i think 2nd fewest turnovers in the league. iirc he also ended with the best ast/to ratio of a ridiculous 4.4, and actually produced more steals per game than turnovers per game. nash is consistently around 3 ast/tov, which makes me think paul is either a better ball handler (he is) or a better (or at least smarter) passer.

he's clearly better at creating a huge possession advantage than anyone, and thats what makes him the best. between that and defensively holding his opponents to a PER of 12*, i'm comfortable saying CP3 is the best point guard in the league, and yes, better than nash in his prime.

*i dislike the PER metric because its used to discuss the best players in a bad way, but if a player's being held to a number that low, he's clearly having a hard time.

Kobes was/is a better passer than Grant Hill. The stats will probably be on par there anyways. Same thing goes for rebounding, theyre both probably sitting at around 5-6 rebounds in their prime. The difference between the two is that Kobe was a much better scorer, and a better 1on1 defender.

I know he was a triple double threat pre-injury, but the assists werent because he was a much better passer than Kobe, it was because he basically played PG on those Detroit teams, and just passed more. Kobe, while running in the triangle for most of his career, averaged similar numbers as Hill did in his (arguably) best season, where he started focusing on scoring more.

It wasnt an edge worth bringing up in terms of comparing their individual skills/talents, and definitely doesnt close the gap between he and Kobe.

Just to be a jerk, if we're judging by win shares (I admit, not the best factor), Hill's best season was '96/'97, when he averaged 21.4 points, 7.3 assists, and 9 rebounds a game (not to mention excellent defense and 1.8 steals and 0.6 blocks). His TS% of 55.6% is at least comparable to Kobe's best seasons as well.

Basing it purely on Win Shares for judging the players best season (again, a debatable metric, but it'll probably work for this)

On a star studded roster, I'd rather have Hill. But that's not to say that I agree the Clips would win; I don't think they would.

Also: I think he was more closely comparing Odom to Jamison. And, actually, it's pretty close there too (again, using the players best win share season...for Jamison, I used '03/'04, since his Win Shares per 48 minutes were drastically better then, even though his numbers were lower due to less minutes):

On a per-minute basis, Jamison was (slightly) more effective in terms of scoring, but I'd think Odom's rebounding and passing would more than make up the difference.

Again, I'd take the Lakers: Dwight Howard would rip those guys up, especially with an in-his-prime Nash running the pick and roll. The Clippers just don't have the interior defense to do much; Jordan blocks shots, but he's not really good defensively. Blake has a long way to go there too. Paul might eviscerate Nash, but realistically they'd never check each other: Kobe would probably guard Paul, with Metta Artest checking Hill. Nash would guard...Billups? He'd still get killed, but less so. I just can't see the Clips handling Dwight, really.

I wasnt able to look up stats at the time of posting, and I admit I shortchanged Grant Hill a bit when he was playing with Detroit.

But Im still taking Kobe, even on a star studded roster. I was just discussing with another user about why Hill isnt necessarily the better passer, and the rebounding difference is nothing significant. He basically ran PG from the SF position, ala LeBron, while Kobe ran the triangle for most of his career and still averaged a respectable amount of assists.

In a star studded team, Im still going to take Kobes shooting and scoring ability over the rebounding and slight playmaking gap Hill may have on him. Not that Hill was any joke on defense, but per postion, Im also taking Kobes 1on1 perimeter defense over Hills.

I cant really comment on win shares, because admittedly Im not even entirely sure about what goes into the calculation, just that its a bunch of things like how many points a player is responsible for, etc etc.

Odom and Jamison is close simply because they bring similar things to the table; versatility at the SF/PF, with Jamison being the more polished scorer (post/perimeter), and Odom being the better handler and playmaker. I agree its close enough though.

I actually think you could argue Jamisons best year was his first or second year with Washington, when they were competitive, but the stats say otherwise, and I didnt watch a ton of their games.

On Jamison: Win Shares doesn't rank either of those seasons as highly because Jamison, while being a good per-minute scorer those years (but no better than in '03/'04; 18.4 points per 36 minutes all 3 of those years, which is crazy consistency) had abhorrent TS% numbers of 50.6% and 51.8% (which are more in line with his career average; '03/'04's 58.1% seems like a fluke). Calling Jamison "polished" for most of his career is a stretch as he's only had 4 seasons that have put him above-average in TS% (IE scoring efficiency).

I'll concede the assist numbers might inflate the difference between the twos passing ability a bit, with Kobe being part of the triangle and all. What's funny is that, on the Clippers (still assuming the primes-only scenario) I'd take Kobe in a heartbeat: his massive amount of scoring would be a huge gain. On the Lakers...I'm not so sure. Dwight's a more efficient scorer, Nash is (and especially was) more efficient, and Pau's even more efficient (all of them would have TS%'s about 60% in our scenario). I think, with that in mind, I'd rather have Grant Hill than Kobe. Hill would be more willing to pass up shots than Kobe, and on a team with Nash/Gasol/Howard, I think I'd rather have that. Not surprisingly, that's also my biggest concern about this years Lakers squad: while Pau and Nash may not be quite what they were in their primes (Nash is nearly as efficient, although he doesn't shoot as much), they're still both fairly efficient scorers (Pau was so-so last season, normally he's exceptionally efficient), more so than Kobe. Really the pressure is on Kobe to learn his place on this team.

Weve got a more than adaquate sixth man in Jamison, Hill would just be a bonus.

The plus side of having players in their prime is that they could all play 40+ minutes a game. Besides, the Lakers havent had a bench in years. Its not like there will ever be an instance where were going to need 5 bench players. Like theyve been doing for a while, theyll just mix in a couple players with the starters.

Nobody is comparing Kobe and LeBron. The point is how much a prime MWP could affect LeBron (not that hed shut him down, but its still worth noting), and then the Lakers are better at every single position except for their sixth man, assuming Allen comes off the bench.

You can call ties if you want on Kobe-Wade, but I think most would agree its pretty clear who was better in their prime. Oh and this isnt even mentioning Howard, who, in addition to Gasol, should only look better playing with Nash.

If we're talking about Lakers on O, I just don't see anywhere to attack the Heat D other than Dwight on Bosh. If they try anyone else, LeBron (or if small enough, Wade) can guard that person at a very high level. In addition I just honestly see any team with prime Kobe turning into him shooting every other possession. It's not like playing with better players would make prime Kobe pass more. On the other end, LeBron's natural unselfishness makes this Heat team simply unguardable. You might say put MWP on LeBron, but he doesn't have to score to be effective. You can't be serious thinking Nash has a chance at defending any of these guys, and hell Dwight Howard has no chance at guarding Bosh all the way out to the 3 point line. That combined with the other-worldly shooting of Rashard Lewis and Ray Allen (who, mind you in his prime had much more than ridiculous shooting touch) to me just makes this team unbeatable, period.

Nobody remembers how good Allen was. He could score from anywhere and attack the basket - he definitely held his own with Kobe. And there's a reason Lewis got a max contract. And don't forget Juwan Howard, he was really good.

But the game changer would be Wade. I don't think anyone could stop him in 2006. He just took it to the hoop at will.

child please. prime KG + Prime Truth? that would be even better than the pierce walker combo which won us the Eastern conference finals. With rondo dishing dimes, and sullinger in 5 years in his prime. that would be masturbatastic.

KG would shut down dwight's fragile mind. Pierce would hobble his way past kobe for the dunk. Rondo's long arms would prevent a speedy steve nash from scoring constantly.

i don't know about that scummy spaniard though. we'll have to assume that sullinger or bass is a sweet defender.

tl;dr: celtics fans have just as much to be optimistic about (with regards to young talent) compared to lakers fans who have a bitch ass center, and some ancient scrubs.

Im well versed in how unstoppable KG and Pierce have been over the years, but the Lakers still look a lot better.

MWP would be an ample matchup for prime Pierce. Pierce, even now, is one heck of a scorer when hes hot, but were talking about one of the best individual perimeter of our era, or of any era actually.

Rondo would be a mistmatch against Nash, but Nash probably wouldnt even be guarding him. If you recall, Kobes been guarding Rondo for years now and weve done fine for the most part. Prime Kobe was another terrific perimeter defender.

Also KG wouldnt be destroying Howard and Gasol. Id personally take prime KG over both of them, but its not going to be a tremendous advantage, especially considering the size of Howard.

tl;dr: celtics fans have just as much to be optimistic about (with regards to young talent) compared to lakers fans who have a bitch ass center, and some ancient scrubs.

Thats fine, except that has absolutley nothing to do with anything lol.

returned to their prime form.

As in players who are past their prime. Why would you ask a question based on the hypothetical primes of younger players :)

As a diehard Celtics fan I have to disagree. The big problem is that there are a lot of young players on the team, so we don't even really know what their primes will be. They haven't hit them yet.

Jet + Rondo + Pierce + Garnett is pretty nice, but who else? I think that some of the starter matchups would favor the Celtics, but not all. Rondo would cause Nash serious problems as an elite defender (indeed, they've played 10 times over the years, and Nash has had 44 turnovers).

Garnett versus Dwight would be a solid matchup, but I think Garnett would win the mental game in a series like you say.

We'd win at SF, and MWP isn't going to do a lot to stop a player like Pierce, but they'd crush us at SG and PF.

You lost in the Eastern Conference Finals in the worst Eastern Conference in recent memory with Pierce/Walker. The argument would be different in 2011, when you had Shaq and Jermaine Oneal in addition to the Big 3+Rondo.

However, prime Artest would shut Pierce down, even more severely than he did in the 2010 finals.

Kobe would toast Jason Terry and Courtney Lee.

Rondo and Nash would be a good matchup, but I think the 2 time MVP has the edge there.

KG spent his prime at PF and would have to let either Gasol or Howard run rampant on Brandon Bass.

I disagree about Nash v Rondo. Ever since Rondo started getting minutes against Nash, he started slapping his shit routinely. And Nash isn't playing a whole lot differently these past few years than he was in his very late prime.

And MWP really doesn't have any history of shutting Pierce down: see here.

Even though Garnett played PF in his prime, it's not like he couldn't play C, and he and Dwight would match up pretty well, but I do believe he'd win mentally.

Well of course I dont believe theyd go like 82-0, 16-0, etc etc, but I think theyre clearly the best team (on paper).

The advantages Miami would have is LeBron and incredible 3pt shooting.

But as revered as LeBron is, MWP was one of the best perimeter defenders of all time, and in addition to knowing how to play defense, hes one of the few players that can actually match LeBrons size. By no means am I saying hed lock LeBron down, but hed make him look a bit more human.

Apart from that, the Lakers are better at every position, except sixth man, assuming Allen is coming off the bench. Kobe-Wade, Nash-Chalmers, Gasol-Bosh/Haslem, Howard-Bosh/Haslem.

At his peak in Seattle, Lewis was at best as valuable as Jamison was in his early years at Washington (or GS).

Not much else to it. Its conjecture, but Howard and Gasol are only going to play better with Nash, and as an individual player, Gasol is marginally better than Bosh in every aspect but shooting.

If had a time machine he should try to go back in time to convince Clyde to come to present time to play for the Knicks, but accidentally break the machine and get stuck in the past and be retired present time.

I'd love this. Not to mention, Rose hasn't even hit his prime yet, so he'd presumably be better. Hamilton putting up 20 points and 4.5 assists a game, Boozer with 21 points and 11 rebounds per game. Then Deng would be like his prime 06-07 season when he shot almost 52% and averaged 18.8 points and 7 rebounds. Jesus.

It would be:
Lakers(Howard, Kobe, Nash, Gasol). Hard to beat that.
Boston(Pierce, KG, Rondo, Terry, Barbosa) People forget just how great KG was in his prime. And Pierce at his prime is the only player in the NBA sans LeBron that matches Kobe at his prime.
Heat(LBJ, Wade, Bosh, Wade, Miller, Allen, Battier) Pretty formidable. I might would even put them ahead of Boston, but I'm a Boston fan. I might even put them ahead of the Lakers b/c of their depth, but again, I'm a Celtics fan.

Lakers. How is this even a contest? Nash is a two-time MVP, Kobe is fucking Kobe, Gasol won championships in his prime with Kobe, MWP was the top defender in the league. Jamison was also a fringe superstar, and let's not forget Dwight fucking Howard.

The Lakers. Why is this even up for debate? they have the best center, the best shooting guard and the best point guard, paired alongside one of the better power forwards and defensive monster that is Ron Artest.

the question should be, which team will be the 2nd best in the league if everyone returned to their prime?

at that point, it would have to be the Heat, Boston, or New York.

Edit: I totally forgot that Grant Hill was still playing, and with the Clippers. For some time Grant Hill was the 2nd coming of MJ. In fact, Grant Hill in his prime is a better player than Blake Griffin, and maybe better than Chris Paul. In his 3rd year in the league he ave 21 ppg, 9 rbp and over 7 apg, all while shooting about 50% from the field AND playing 40 mpg.

yeah, even given this situation the lakers still arent very deep. the argument could be made for the heat as well with prime lebron, wade, battier, haslem, miller, bosh, allen although they would get beat pretty badly on the boards against lakers/knicks and the like

I think he hit it last season. He started taking shots down the stretch and would take over games when he had to, something we didn't see before, at least not with the Heat. Cleveland was just a bad team + Lebron so he had to take over all the games.

I know they wouldn't dominate, but the Celtics would be pretty damn good. Rondo is in his prime right now, and imagine Pierce and Garnett both in their primes. They would a good team, but the Lakers' current team would be by far the best.

The Heat would have something to say about this with 5 guys that go for 25 a night on their roster... They might not be able to stop alot of people but damn could they ever score the ball.. Plus you get Juwan Howard in his prime !

It's gotta be the lakers, there are plenty of guys out there who were best for a year, but comparing those bests is a different story. The best years out of Kobe and Howard are the best of any (active)player at their position. Then you have Nash who is a close second or third. Gasol is still a respectable top 10, Artest a top 20 and a good number of one to two season flashers on the bench. If this was even slightly realistic they all compliment eachother too.

The knicks would probably be second with active players so I'm ignoring AI, means kidd as best pg season and melo at #2 at SF, a number of other top 10 talent Amare probably at 3-4 in the PF column, can't put his best against KG or Timmy but he had one of the best offensive games a PF has ever had (with nash's help but still).

Heat a close third, Lebron being the best player, wade being 2-4 on the sg chart. Allen and bosh both putting in top 15 seasons.

Spurs a solid fourth, which is pretty crazy if you think about it since they don't really bring in much "veteran talent", Timmy, Manu and Parker at their primes with SJ is a pretty scary fucking team.

Gerald Wallace in his prime was perhaps the best defender in the league (he did win the hardware.) He could shut down MOST nba players pretty easily.

Joe Johnson in his prime was pretty handily the second best SG in the league, and pretty damn good.

The problem is, unlike the Knicks/Heat, the Nets don't have as many older players. They have people like Brooks and Lopez who still have potential in the future. I will say, Nash + Kobe in their prime is a scary proposition, especially when you throw in a center who would still probably be the best center in the league. They'd have hands down the best SG in the league, probably the best PG in the league (though Kidd would certainly give him a run for his money), one of the best power fowards in the league, hell, one of the better defensive players you will see, and then the best center in the league.

I still think the lakers would be the best team overall. It's just ridiculous to think of Nash and Kobe (who in their prime, were BOTH fighting for the MVP) on the same team with two potential defensive players of the year.

Lakers/Heat are the favorites but I think people are underselling the Knicks. Jason Kidd would arguably be the best point guard playing. Meanwhile a front court of Stat, Sheed, Chandler, Camby, and Thomas is probably the best you'll find to stop Pau and Dwight or beating the heat inside. Ronnie Brewer and Shumpert are the athletic freaks you'd need to slow down Kobe or Wade/Lebron. I would say Nash as well but Kidd would pick him up.

Knicks. I'm not even saying that because i'm a Knicks fan. But if we had Kidd, Felton, Melo, Stat and Chandler in their prime that would be pretty sick. Not to mention Camby and Rasheed as backups in their prime.

The Celtics would be a nasty team.
KG(2003-2004,24.2ppg)
The Truth(2005-2006,26.8ppg)
Rondo(2009-2010,13.7ppg)
Terry(2000-20001,19.7ppg)
Bass(2011-2012,12.5ppg)
Jeff Green(2008-2009,16.5ppg)
Wilcox(2005-2006,14.1ppg)(anyone remember how good he was in Seattle?)
Lee(2009-2010,12.5ppg)
Bradley(2011-2012,7.6ppg)
Barbosa(2006-2007,18.1ppg)(was a beast with Phoenix)

Really, really close between the Heat and the Lakers. If Wade was at his peak and Battier was still in his prime that would be an extremely tough team to beat. But I have to give the edge to the Lakers. Even Kone and Dwight at their peaks would be nearly impossible to beat, and Nash running the PnR with Pau and Dwight would be just as unstoppable. Not to mention Artest as a perfect complement at sf and a premium wing defender.

Rashard Lewis in his prime? 22/6/5. Ray Allen 26/6/5. Both sharpshooters. Shane Battier in his defensive prime? Wade turning the clock back and a current LeBron James? I know there are majority lakers fans on this sub, but dear lord the way they are talking is that no one would stand a chance.

Solid point, I forgot about Lewis in particular. I still think the Lakers have the raw talent advantage, especially at pointguard. Lakers also have an ever-so-slight advantage at SG. Heat have a big advantage at SF, though I would be very comfortable having Artest cover Lebron. In his prime he'd do as good a job with that matchup as anybody in the league right now could, and I doubt it's close. PF has a huge advantage for the Lakers with Pau over...maybe Battier? Possibly even Lewis. And C has a monster advantage with Dwight over Bosh. That's four out of five starting spots with an advantage to the Lakers, and three of those are massive.

But I do have to give an equally giant advantage to the Heat's bench, as well as to their ability to stretch the Lakers out with Lewis and Allen, possibly at the same time with Wade, Lebron and Bosh. In their respective primes, that would be a truly impressive lineup, and would likely be the lineup they roll with for forty minutes a game, with Battier getting a lot of work covering Kobe as well.

This series would be epic if it were possible. I'm not sure who really gets the edge. I might have to lean towards the Heat, but the Lakers would PUNISH the Heat inside and that might be enough to be the difference in the series.

And it just occurred to me, let's not sleep on the Knicks, with Amare, Melo and Chandler in their primes forming a devastating front court, and Kidd running the point. Not to mention Camby and Rasheed coming off the bench. Backcourt depth would be an issue, because Felton and JR have never even really had primes, nor has Shumpert, but that would be enough to spell Kidd and feed the ball in to Melo and Amare while the rest completely seal off the paint and grab a ton of boards.

If your best players are Kobe in his prime, Steve Nash in his prime, Ron Artest in his prime, Pau Gasol in his prime, and Dwight Howard in his prime, you really don't need anybody else with talent on the roster, you can make do with anybody and just mix and match talent, always having three or more megastars on the floor at the same time and hiding whoever the other two happen to be. Depth only matters when you only have a couple guys who can score, while the Lakers would have five elite scorers.

He averaged 20 2 years in a row, but it was just barely over 20. Yeah I was just guessing his numbers, but I wasn't too far off I guess. I think he's at the tail end of his prime at best. He's not as great as he used to be, but he's definitely still one of the top PFs in the game.

Well I dunno. I see him now, and I see very little difference between the Gasol of now and the Gasol of 3-4 years ago. If anything hes just improved, by adding the mid range game, fine tuning the post up game, and becoming an even better passer.

He just seems like hes had a drop off because he started feeding Bynum and sort of stepped back a bit from the aggresiveness he had during the title runs a few years back. I dont think its been an issue of talent or age or anything like that.

Regardless, if I want to win a championship right now, Im taking Gasol/Garnett/Dirk over the Love/Griffin/Aldridge.

Yeah I get what you're saying, but I also think things are a lot easier for him now. In Memphis he was the focus of the offense so he was constantly getting double teamed. He averaged better numbers in Memphis than he did in LA, so while his offensive game has improved, I still think he was better in Memphis and his first couple years as a Laker than now.